Oral Presentation Draft

[LPadlan]

Hey guys so i've been given the topic "Should poor people have less kids?" I have wrote a draft (will not include SOI) Any constructive criticism is appreciated. Obviously the analogy in the end is hyperbole so dont take that too seriously.


Hello everyone my name is Luis. Recently, leading academic Peter Jones from Bond University has sparked controversy on his belief that poor people should have less children. There are supporters on both sides, I too believe poor people should have less children, but that is only opinion and does not provide any realistic outcomes. So instead I propose a solution. I am here to convince each of you, members of the parliament why there should be less focus on welfare and government handouts but instead a larger focus on education.

Now, I’m sure you know that the Australian government invests roughly 160 billion dollars on welfare, support and government handouts. This is five times more than what the government spends on education and ten times more than what is spent on national defence. I’m sure you can see the problem. Yes, I think poor people should have less children, but who are we to say that they are not as capable of being a good parent as their wealthier counterparts? If the government stopped investing so much money on welfare, they can spend more on public education. Implementing better programs, better technology, basically giving all kids, even those who are born from a poor family (Under national average income) a better chance to succeed. Because, you know, unless you’re a genetic freak, education is the key to success.

Investing in education, would on average increase academic performance and benefit the economy greatly. Though academic performance is largely dependent on family inputs and the students own individual talents, other factors, such as the school resources that are available to the students also play an important role, so do other school inputs, such as teacher quality and class size. A bigger budget in education would allow teachers to be paid more, which I believe most of them deserve. More money will attract higher achieving students to pursue a career in teaching, increasing teacher quality in the long run. Because admit it, the majority of people if they had the choice will move to where the money is. When you’re young, you’re told to follow your dreams until you realise you’ll get paid $10 every four years if you pursue that career. When teachers are new to their profession, they’re motivated, they make classes fun but after a while they become desensitised and numb, I don’t know if they just get bored or maybe it’s the lack of funding. I’m not saying they get paid pennies but I’m sure if you slide in some extra cash, they’ll be like “you know what, I’ll try a little bit harder”.

We could always tell people especially, the poor to stop producing so many kids. But, will people actually listen? How will that be enforced? Would you penalise, fine people for having kids? Wouldn’t that just make people poorer? Sex is a basic human need, we can’t tell them to give it up that would be limiting their freedom. Like before, a higher budget in education will allow better programs to be implemented into schools, programs like sex education.
Reducing the welfare funding in the short term will initially come with a lot of backlash, but were not looking at the short term, were looking at long term. You as leaders, have the duty to have a vision for the long term potential of this country. I know, in the short term it will be viewed as unpopular, unethical, “favouring the wealthy”. You guys will receive a lot of hate. But, think about this, when Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States, he was hated, mocked and criticised all because he tried to end slavery. But, how is he remembered today? I’ll tell you, he’s remembered as a smart, courageous man who stood up for what he believed and he benefited the lives of people in the long run. How will you be remembered? Remember, leaders are long term thinkers. Make the right choice. Thank you.

[Bri MT]

A couple of points to consider:

-If you are delivering this in parliament, should it have a conversational/informal tone?
-Is sex a basic human need? Does all sex result in having children?  Is this likely to be the reason people oppose this policy?
-You raise that it would be difficult to police such a policy, but don't propose a clear solution
-Would politicians all believe that people go to wherever has the most money?
-The amount of money spent on particular areas in the budget seems to be your only evidence; you make many claims without support

[vox nihili]

Agree with much of what miniturtle has said, so I won't give exhaustive feedback—you've got enough to work with.

I think your style is quite good and I think you use your language well in most parts. I particularly like the fact that you've gone to the effort to write a speech, rather than speak an essay. Good work there.

For a VCE oral though, you need to demonstrate a more thoughtful exploration of this topic. The very best speeches are those that show that you've done some research, and show that that research has informed the view that you're giving today.

It seems to me that you've struggled with this topic a little bit. Perhaps that's because you don't really agree with what you're saying, but that would only be guessing. Indeed, I don't think your speech really relates to your topic. Your topic is supposed to be "should poor people have fewer kids?", but you seem to be bogged down in a debate about cutting welfare to fund education (something which is actually likely to lead to a deterioration in levels of achievement, rather than the boon that you claim btw).

What are your thoughts on the topic itself? How do you think you could approach it?